Reform groups to FCC: more TV content ratings, please!

Reform groups say they want the government to expand the scope and power of …

The Federal Communications Commissions' Notice of Inquiry on content blocking and filtering devices is done, with all comments and replies to comments filed. And judging from the latest statements, a key question is whether the FCC's required report to Congress on this matter will encourage lawmakers to expand the TV ratings systems used by the statutorily required V-Chip.

"The Commission should adopt rules designed to incentivize broadcasters to ensure the V-Chip will function effectively with multiple, independent ratings systems," wrote the Parents Television Council on the final day of the proceeding. "Given the inconsistencies, subjective nature and lack of transparency of the television industry’s guidelines, families should be free to choose a ratings system that comports with their own standards."

Ratings heaven

There are a lot of alternative ratings methods out there besides the one used in the V-Chip. And there are a lot of groups that want the government to "incentivize" the industry to add them. Here's a quick tutorial on the chip: All post-2000 manufactured TVs with screens 13 inches or bigger have to have them. Parents can program these sets to block content via the following ratings: TV-Y ("all children"); TV-Y7 ("older children"); TV-G ("general audience"); TV-PG ("parental guidance suggested"); TV-14 ("parents strongly cautioned"), and TV-M ("Mature").

The Children's Media Policy Coalition wants ads to be rated just like programs, "so that parents can block those that contain violent or sexual images or themes," the group told the FCC.

This system was set up by the Motion Picture Association of America, the National Association of Broadcasters, and the National Cable and Telecommunications Association. PTC argues that it doesn't work very well because TV stations often don't flash one or more of the four possible advisory content or "theme" labels during shows: V ("violence"); S ("sexual situations"); L ("strong coarse language"), or D ("intensely suggestive dialogue"). The group has its own ratings system, which "no broadcaster has yet volunteered to transmit," it complains.

But PTC's approval/disapproval list is only one of many. The Coalition for Independent Ratings boasts a veritable cornucopia of methods up on its website that it wants made more accessible. "The usefulness of these ratings systems to parents is greatly diminished if they are not able to access them when they are making their decision regarding what programs to block with the V-Chip," CIR wrote to the FCC last week.

It's easy to get lost in the forest of new ratings proposals, but the one that practically all the reform groups have glommed onto is a proposed extension of ratings categories to commercials. The Children's Media Policy Coalition wants ads to be rated just like programs, "so that parents can block those that contain violent or sexual images or themes," the group told the FCC.

CMPC includes the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and the American Psychological Association, among other groups. The coalition also wants ratings to include a "content descriptor" tagging commercials that push "adult-oriented" items "so that parents have the option of blocking ads for movies or video games that are intended for mature audiences, as well as alcoholic beverages and certain prescription drugs." Both PTC and CIR have endorsed this general idea.

The CMPC also wants to add another category to the V-Chip, "E/I," or "educational/informational" programming as it's called. "Allowing parents to use the V-Chip to affirmatively select good programming for their children," the group argues, "rather than just to block objectionable programming, would increase the V-Chip’s effectiveness as a parental control mechanism."

Limits of authority?

A lot of free market and civil liberties advocates have been pushing back on these proposals. Most argue that the market presently offers a wide variety of content raters and blockers for just about every possible platform, so why does the government need to get further involved?

"There has never been a time in our nation’s history when parents have had more tools and methods at their disposal to help them decide what constitutes acceptable media content in their homes and in the lives of their children," noted Adam Thierer of the Progress and Freedom Foundation in his comments on this proceeding.

PFF's filing is 148 pages long, but anyone leaning towards more regulation in this area should give the commentary a read. A key point is that when Congress passed the Child Safe Viewing Act in 2007—asking the FCC to advise the government on the state of content filtering devices—it authorized this inquiry and no more.

"Does the Commission recognize any boundaries to the oversight authority it asserts in the name of investigating 'advanced blocking technologies'?" Thierer asked. "It certainly should."

Indeed. But with Capitol Hill considering a bill that would ban the TV advertising of erectile dysfunction pills between 6am and 10pm, there's no telling what inspirations politicians will derive from the FCC's report, especially if it sympathetically outlines these proposals for expanding the V-Chips' scope. The agency has to submit its survey to Congress by August 29.

Matthew Lasar / Matt writes for Ars Technica about media/technology history, intellectual property, the FCC, or the Internet in general. He teaches United States history and politics at the University of California at Santa Cruz.